| Author |
Message |
    
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 11:42 am: |     |
Fairtax, if you think a house is valued at $488K and is that far under-assessed, I think you need to report it. Hard as it may be to do so, it's large errors like this that are making a difference in our tax rate. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:04 pm: | |
I don't know Njjoseph. A house only weeks ago was listed at $535 is now listed at $498K. On the hill. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:07 pm: | |
Njjoseph - Interesting proposition - It's like one of those questions that people write to "the ethicist" at The New York Times.
It's up to CVI to correct or the homeowner. It is unconscionable in my opinion for a homeowner to support the reval when he knows his house is radically underassessed in comparision to the fair market value on his street. (Not talking only October Townie - ALL the sales for 2000)
Townie, what would you do if this was your house? |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:28 pm: | |
Fairtax01,
I've already answered your question. But now that you mention that you're talking about Durand, it's easier to see where you're going wrong.
Durand experienced a lot of bidding wars. As Ed Gallante said at the second town meeting in the school, that was taken into consideration. So if you're going by cold house sale numbers, you're making the same mistake Certified made that was subsequently corrected by Gallante, which he has the legal authority to do.
I walk all over my neighborhood, to the top of Durand and through the Roosevelt area because it's so nice, and I've browsed the assessments as provided by Gerry Ryan. What I see reflected neighborhood wide in the hills are fair market assessments. I can't speak about individual houses. They may have special circumstances.
But it's having repeat all this stuff that makes me wonder why Fairtax01 thinks its got the smarts to oversee the townwide reval. You don't seem to be able to read or listen. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:39 pm: | |
Njjoseph,
You are missing the point of Fairtax's game here. I live on Durand. They are fishing for where I live by baiting me with sales and assessment data about houses on Durand, thinking it might be my house. Get it now? I've criticized them, so they are spending their time poring over house assessments on Durand, hoping they'll hit mine and make a public case its underassessed.
Lovely people, huh?
Still with'em Waynecaviness?
Is that why you were curious about when I moved to Maplewood, Nil? |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:47 pm: | |
There are scores of misassessments and with the new adjustments they are often still not reflecting the fair market value. A house went on the market in your/my neighborhood last week (private listing) for 100,000 over the (new) assessment.
Townie, what would you do if your house was ungerassessed compared to recent sales of comparable houses in your neighborhood? |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:47 pm: | |
Waynecaviness,
I don't know what the norm is for making mistakes in house assessments. And of course I don't know how many factual errors it did make. Some of the anecdotal evidence I've heard to some degree I think reflects owner misunderstanding of the process. But surely a homeowner knows if he or she has one bath or two or eight, so I think it's right to document the errors. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:52 pm: | |
Fairtax01,
You keep revealing you don't know what fair market value is. Before you go on blabbing in this townwide discussion, you should learn.
Markets go up and down. People shouldn't go running to the assessor everytime a house goes on the market. For assessment purposes, the cut off date for consideration of houses in this reval has already passed. Houses put on the market in 2001 aren't part of it. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 1:06 pm: | |
Townie - you still didn't answer my question - what if your house seemed underassessed compared to even 50% of the sale prices in your neighborhood in 2000?
I realize that houses in 2001 aren't part of the equation, but it stands to reason that a house valued using stats up to October 2000 wouldn't leap 100,000 in value in 4 months.
Maybe the assessment was flawed. |
John
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 1:51 pm: | |
I've been missing these conversations on CV and the new assessments for quite a while. What with the Tuscan Show and all (I hope you all got a chance to see it)... So I'm jumping in here without going too far back in the reading.
I heard of a house going on the market for $619,000. I looked it up in the database and it was just reassessed at $509,000. This tells me its over-priced. Maybe if your house is going on the market you don't want a lower valuation. If my house were undervalued (and I can assure you it is not) and I were planning on selling, it would be to my interest to make sure it is at least the true value. Of course if I were staying I'd probably keep my mouth shut. In this case, even if the true value of the house is 619K why would anyone (who did their homework) pay the price when its assessed 110K lower. They may not get 619K with the higher taxes, but it would sell closer to that price than with an assessment at 509K. Wouldn't it? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 2:06 pm: | |
I have a feeling I know the house you're referring to. I think the valuation for that house is probably on the low side rather than the house being overpriced. A real estate agent wouldn't list it if it were that far out-of-line.
I believe that having an assessment and the sale price that far away from each other is going to hurt the new homeowner, who will have a new assessment shortly after moving in. That one will be lots higher than the $509K, and the difference in taxes would make a significant difference in the mortgage payment -- one that the new homeowner might never have qualified for had the valuation been "correct."
In addition, when houses in a particular neighborhood sold, aren't the percentages over and under assessments going to be averaged out and homes in the neighborhood adjusted accordingly? Right away, it looks that a whole neighborhood will be put at risk of 20% increases in assessments.
I might be wrong, but this is what I understand of the new tax assessments being done every year or two. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 2:32 pm: | |
Townie: I am not trying to figure out who you are by asking you when you moved here. I am not contesting my taxes, I believe them to be "fair" under our current system. I have not even attempted to play with Mr. Ryan's spreadsheets. I only asked if you were new to town and to Maplewood politics. Relatively new to me is 3 years, 10 -15 years is around a while and over 20 is "seen it all". That's all. I believe people who think mistakes were made are entitled to form groups. The good thing about this revaluation is people will be more involved and pay more attention to their government. Maybe this monopoly will be broken up. |
John
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 3:02 pm: | |
It may well be that the true value is 619K. But the point I'm trying to make is that, if there is a revaluation every year or two then, there is an incentive for those who are going to sell to make sure their house is assessed properly. Anyone can then look at the Tax Records and see whether the home is priced right. In this case any buyer doing their homework would say one of two things. My taxes will be much higher than reported or "You are asking way too much!" This applies in any part of town and to any house. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 3:06 pm: | |
Thanks, Nil.
I happen to know the person on Durand whose personal house assessment and other information Fairtax01 is cryptically posting in an effort to "smoke" me out. I'm very upset with their tactics. These kinds of politics I'm sure -- I hope -- is not what you were hoping for. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 3:11 pm: | |
Fairtax01, you seem to want to have it both ways - a major complaint of the Fair Tax Committee has been that current "bubble" prices are artificially high, out-of-line with actual market reality, and thus should not be used for assessment purposes. On the other hand, you're now making a tempest in a teapot about the supposed undervaluation of a house which is assessed at 488K but would sell (so you say) for 600K or more. So - which is it? The valuations are bad because CVI used market rates, or the valuations are bad because they didn't? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 3:45 pm: | |
The house has to be 99 Durand Rd. It sold in Oct-95 for $374,900. It's the only house in the database with that sale price.
Looking at just the houses on that street I can see several similar examples. Maybe there are no 2000 sales under 500,000 on that block but there are 99 sales (88 DURAND ROAD, Jul-99, 359000, new assessment 393500; 95 DURAND ROAD, May-99, 450000, new assessment 454200).
On the other hand, the houses that have year 2000 sales are all assessed below the sale values: (97 DURAND ROAD, Sep-00, 500000, new assessment 443000; 98 DURAND ROAD, Jul-00, 510000, new assessment 431100; 83 DURAND ROAD, Mar-00, 675000, new assessment 624500)
Looks to me like on the second pass the assessor diminished the significance of the year 2000 sales. Isn't that what Fairtax was asking for? |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 4:01 pm: | |
LSeltzer,
No. That is wasn't was Fairtax01 was looking for. It was looking for Townie because in previous postings I told them I wouldn't be bullied into silence by them (they tried). Now they are trying this: using the assessment database to check against what spotty information I've revealed about myself to other posters in order to guess which house I live in. If you knew the residents of Durand, you would recognize cryptic references to one homeowner's name. I know it's not Townie. But Fairtax01 doesn't. They think I'm him, and they are trying to use that is an example of an "underassessed" house to try to scare ME into not posting.
Apparently they don't care how the residents of THAT house feel, as well as their neighbors, whose sales data and house condition is being discussed. I do. I don't think such information should be used this way and I realize you did innocently, but please be aware of Fairtax's games and tactics and motives. I'm not exaggerating. This is what they are doing. And they'll do it to other posters who criticize them, whether they have the correct information or not. If you still can, you should delete it.
I hope others will join me in saying this is reprehensible. I hope this finally answers the question: Who is Fairtax? They're people who'll obviously stoop to anything. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 4:17 pm: | |
Townie, I've said again and again we have an obligation to see that the program was properly conducted and that it results in fair and proper assessments FOR ALL.
Whomever owns the house in question - you or a neighbor - it certainly brings to the forefront that there are some real irregularities that the assessment process has not corrected by a long shot. Irregularities that every single taxpayer in this town will pay for out of their own pockets.
Townie - I don't want to "bully"you into silence. But don't expect me not to question what YOUR agenda is. |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 4:29 pm: | |
Townie,
I can't quite believe that Fairtax is ferreting out individuals in order to silence them. Fairtax is just barely an organization and I am quite sure that they don't have a press secretary much less a secret police organization.
As I see it, they are a loose coalition of individuals initially brought together by a pretty shocking increase in property taxes.
The TC weathered the worst of their criticism as well as a ton of freelance criticism and essentially stayed the course. They did fix up the worst of CV's errors and are continuing to work on cleaning up CV's mess. I think it may fairly be said that Fairtax was instrumental in making this happen.
At this point, however, I think it may be said that Fairtax has shot its bolt and while there may be some continued smoke, there won't be any fire.
P.S. I know Lydia and I can tell you that she is the last person who would resort to anything other than civilized discourse. The fact that email exchanges often deteriorate into hostility is usually a function of writing style as opposed to a lack of civility on the part of the correspondents. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 4:36 pm: | |
Euclidean,
I finally figured out the cryptic references in that post. I'm not making it up. I know who lives on my street. And in that house. I'm not going to reveal the name here. I can understand why you don't want to believe it. I'm appalled.
The person who is cryptically mentioned in the posts is not the target. I am. That's the crime of it -- although it would be bad enough if it was me and raising questions about what that particular house needed an upward adjustment in its assessment. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 4:39 pm: | |
Townie- I can't help but feel that you are overreacting. If LSeltzer can look up individual assessments and sale prices, then why can't Fairtax? The info has been published and that's that. Not to mention, none of us lives in a cave (presumably!) we all have friends who've been in this house or that, before this owner, but after that owner and on and on and people want to talk about this reval adnauseum(proof right here on this board!) Not everyone is keyed into the RE market so talking and analyzing helps a person to know if their assessment is in line.
It seems to me that Fairtax was trying to make a point that a person who knows his house was overassessed goes through the steps of correcting the assassment. BUT, does a person who knows that his house is underassessed go through the steps of getting an adjustment? Probably NOT! And the point here is that THAT is not fair.
Galante went through that 2nd pass and lowered many assessments street by street. But did he go street be street through ALL of town to look for any other glaring mistakes whether upward or downward? If CV made such gross mistakes on the high end, it stands to reason that they may have made mistakes at the lower end. The data ought to be analyzed...in the name of fairness! |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 4:42 pm: | |
Ffof,
There are deliberate misspellings and other things mentioned in fairtax01's post that refer to the life of an individual who lives on Durand Road. I'm not kidding. I won't give you the keys, but if you knew them, you'd be able to catch the references. It's why Fairtax01 kept asking me about that particular house. They think it's Townie's house.
These people are not the nice people you give them credit for being. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 4:45 pm: | |
Townie - you're referring to yourself in the third person and it's worrying me... I don't doubt that they are trying to figure out who you might me but take a deep breath! |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 4:55 pm: | |
eliz,
This isn't about me. I can of course take whatever fairtax does to me. I knew that when I refused to back down before. I never thought homeowners on Durand would be targeted this way in retaliation. That's the source of my urgent tone here. I'd like it to stop. They think they're going after me, but they're going after other people. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 5:33 pm: | |
>>Galante went through that 2nd pass and lowered many assessments street by street. But did he go street be street through ALL of town to look for any other glaring mistakes whether upward or downward?
My impression is that some houses were revised upward. In fact, there were complaints on this board about upward adjustments. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 5:34 pm: | |
I just don't think that "they" are going "after" anyone! Maybe "they" want to know who Townie is but that's kind of understandable since Townie has posted so much and lately it's getting very ugly lately -( it used to be so neutral!) But we know that "they" in this case is Lydia since she said that she's the one at the Fairtax address. By the way, I think that she's been a pretty great person to get fliers out, send general e-mails, etc etc and generally hang in there!
Townie- Even if Fairtax has "targeted" the wrong house (looking for you supposedly), I think that the point stands as stated in my prior post above, and ps. if anyone else on Durand is upset about this, please speak up or forever hold your peace! |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 5:36 pm: | |
LSeltzer - you're right. But that sounded like a strange one (the person went in to complain about something wrong and then the assessment went UP!) But were there "blanket" upward adjustments anywhere? |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 5:52 pm: | |
Townie - I don't target out Durand - I'm on Euclid, we're in the same "neighborhood". I know the numbers in this neighborhood. The house I mentioned that's for sale for 100K over the assessment is also in the neighborhood.
Curmudgeon; We still don't know the assumptions which affect dwelling values which were applied on a neighborhood basis. We don't know the definitions and criteria of how they arrived at each neighborhood.(We know where the neighborhood outlines are, we just don't know why they are those outlines).
Even though there were numerous misassessments on the hill, certainly some of the assessments were correct. With blanket reductions, might the values of homes be underassessed on a vast basis?
When it's up to the individual homeowner to ask for corrections on their assessments that ensures that only overassessments will be contested. If CVI made such gross errors with the first assessment I'd like to know how many assessments were corrected and on what basis? Why would it make sense that blanket reguctions did anything but correct some and bring the rest to below market value?
It's almost impossible for any homeowner to effectively appeal their assessment on anything but the most basic errors(sq. footage, room count, etc.) if they don't have comparables. We still don't know the list of comparables used in establishing land values in the neighborhoods.
A lot of positive progress has been made by the efforts of both the TC and the activist population of Maplewood. My fervent hope is that when the reval dust settles the final results of the assessments will reflect the fair market values of almost all of the houses in Maplewood. Simple. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 5:52 pm: | |
Ffof,
I'm afraid you're wrong. It's not paranoia. I know it's hard to believe. But it's not just a case of my refusing to back down. Like I said, the homeowner they targeted is recognizable from the fairtax01 postings if you know him.
I don't think homeowners on Durand who've never been involved in my posts should have to show up here to say they don't want to be treated this way. I'm surprised people don't object.
I'm sorry to learn this is Lydia Lacey. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 5:54 pm: | |
fairtax01,
You began by mentioning a house that isn't for sale. You are lying and trying to cover your tracks, trying to be misleading as you always do. I've exposed you. Next Lydia will come out and say somebody is using our screen name? |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 5:55 pm: | |
I really hate repeating myself, but here goes: The middle of Maplewood has been carrying the load apparently for sometime. Now that the east side has been lowered and the "hill" gotten adjusted, does anybody care that my taxes are going up from $12 to $16G. But, there may be hope for the up-to-now fairly silent middle. Tonight I have been invited to attend a meeting of irate middletowners!! Apparently my neighbors don't go online, but they're not dead! Even the snow hasn't cancelled the gathering. Maybe tomorrow I'll have something to report from the middle. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 6:35 pm: | |
Townie - let's review: today you said I had a puppy dog something or other, I don't "know how to read or listen" and now I'm lying. Throughout the last few days you've catagorized my e-mail letters that I send out from FairTax as "vile", "divisive" and so on. No one else has come even close to the fury you've worked up against me and our group.
I don't know your name. I've not criticized you personally. What is it about the reval that threatens you so that you attack me personally? Remember the rumour you started about the secret group of Essex County Republicans?
I don't know your name and you don't want to talk about your strong positions anywhere except in this anonymous message board. There's something wrong with your excuses. You have the right to remain anonymous, but then your attacks should not be upon me personally but upon my group. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 6:50 pm: | |
Townie - Is it right to get so nasty when your identity and agenda is all secret? For all I know you're a South Orange woman who works for Certified Valuations! Tomorrow you can come online under another name and a different bio that suits some new character. You keep talking about Fairtax's bullying...talk about people that live in glass houses! |
Dave
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 6:51 pm: | |
This thread is officially done. I hope we can start new threads with more dialogue and less diatribe (as some NPR show puts it :-). |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page